The present application relates to a bicycle frame; specifically, it relates to a frame design that improves upon limitations of existing bicycle frame designs, including weight, reliability, and cost. Early bicycle frames were constructed of tubular sections joined together with lugs. Over time, innovations in the fields of materials and manufacturing methods drove improvements in bicycle frame design, including the elimination of lugs and tubing, reductions in weight, lower construction costs and improvements in strength and rigidity. Presently, diamond-type bicycle frames are common given an economic combination of strength, stiffness, and manufacturability. Such designs are constructed by joining a head tube, a top tube, a down tube, a seat tube, a pair of seat stays, and a pair of chain stays. To improve strength and rigidity, such frames utilize duplicate seat stays and chain stays, resulting in higher weight and cost. These members often reflect cross sections which do not offer a high stiffness relative to cross-sectional area when compared to more structurally efficient cross sections. Consequently, achieving overall frame stiffness in such designs requires additional material, further contributing to higher overall weight and cost. More recent bicycle frame innovations, such as monocoque designs, successfully reduce weight but are more difficult and expensive to manufacture, thereby limiting accessibility to many consumers. Although manufactured relatively inexpensively and thus accessible to many consumers, diamond-type bicycle frames feature many locations where members are adjoined by methods such as brazing and welding; such joining methods add to the total cost of frame construction and introduce the possibility of failure modes at those locations. Some relevant failure modes include fatigue fracture, brittle fracture, and impact fracture at the location where members are adjoined. Separately, the distance between the seat stays of diamond-type bicycle frames limits the wheel and tire combinations which may be mounted to the frame. For example, a frame designed to accommodate a standard 26 inch×2.1 inch rear tire may not be able to accommodate a 26 inch×3.8 inch rear tire. Thus, there is a continuing need for improvements in bicycle frame design. As a result of the shortcomings of the prior art described above, a bicycle frame design which features a lower weight and lower susceptibility to certain failure modes while reducing cost and enabling the use of a wide range of tire sizes is needed.